Sky News Showdown

SUBJECTS: Newspoll; Royal Commission; AWU Scandal; Education funding; Republic

E&OE................................

(Greetings omitted) 

Peter van Onselen: Let’s talk about the polls. You guys must be petrified.

Christopher Pyne: Now I’m petrified, no, I wouldn’t say that we’re petrified. We’re ahead in every poll that’s been published for about the last two years …

Van Onselen: Not the preferred leader poll.

Pyne: And certainly this year. Well the preferred leader is not actually very important. On Election Day, the only poll that matters is the number of votes cast in the ballot box and that’s based on the 2 party preferred vote as you know.

Van Onselen: Yeah, but your problem is that there could be twelve months to go until the next election and your mantra …

Pyne: I think we would be very unlucky as nation but nevertheless …

Van Onselen: That may be true but twelve months is a long time and if you look at the two party vote you have gone from leads of in the 60/40 range to 51/49. Your primary vote, three of the last four polls has been below where it was at the last election which of course you didn’t win so there must be some concern there if you add that to the leadership ratings. Now I don’t think there’s any chance of a leadership change ahead of the next election. I’ve said that time immemorial however, that doesn’t means it isn’t damaging over the course of a twelve month period.

Pyne: But there are a couple of reality checks. The first one is that Labor needs to win seats from the Coalition to stay in Government after the next election. They have less seats than the Liberal Party does. Certainly, the Coalition needs to win seats too but we actually have more seats than Labor.

Van Onselen: In other words, they can’t sandbag seats.

Pyne: If you could tell me where Labor is going to win a swag of seats from the Coalition, it would be a very interesting conversation. I think the truth is anecdotally the hard heads in the Labor Party, the hard heads in the Liberal Party know that Julia Gillard has a massive integrity issue amongst the public. She said there would be no carbon tax before the election, then she introduced one. Now Labor’s given themselves a big tick for the introduction of the carbon tax. They think it’s gone tremendously well. They’ve got serious tickets on themselves and there’s a saying of course, to kill the first time is hard, to kill the second and third time gets much easier and now that they think they have done so well with the carbon tax, I’ll bet you London to a brick, after the next election, if they win, they will introduce more taxes to fill their revenue black hole.

Van Onselen: You’re saying that they’re unlikely to win and I’ve come to the same conclusion. It’s hard to find seats around the electoral pendulum they’re going to pick up and they are a minority Government as you say but you don’t want to just limp over the line you guys want to win big surely, because if you think that the Government has been so bad you need a big mandate to undo all the things you want to get rid of.

Pyne: What’s important is that the country has a government that thinks that substance is more important than spin and the reason why the polls have tightened in the last few months is twofold, one they have had a massive personal vilification campaign against Tony Abbott, which must have an impact on people and secondly, there has been a blizzard of distractions in the last three months, announcements, white papers, motherhood statements, constant new shiny toys that the government throws out to distract the public from the carbon tax, cost of living, job security, border protection, the Prime Minister’s integrity and economic mismanagement.

Van Onselen: It sounds like you are saying the public are silly and they’re falling for it because the polls are tightening.

Pyne: No, it’s been a sensible political strategy from the government to distract the public from cost of living job insecurity, border protection and so on.

Van Onselen: People are not that silly though are they? They’re not so silly that the government’s that bad but they’re now swinging around behind it because of superficial manoeuvres. You can’t think the public are that silly.

Pyne: I’m not saying that they’re silly; I’m saying the government are running a clever political strategy or tactics because that’s what this government does. It focuses…

Van Onselen: But it only works if people are silly …

Pyne: It focuses on the day to day ….well you’re focussed on them being silly, I’m focussed on ….

Van Onselen: You can call me silly but I bet you’re not going to call the public silly ….

Pyne: The public certainly are not silly but my view is once an election is called the only thing that will matter is the government’s record and the government’s record is job insecurity, higher cost of living, electricity prices rising, introducing new taxes, boats arriving 16 arrived in the last week more than arrived in five years under the Howard Government, economic mismanagement, lies about the surplus which nobody believes and in those five weeks of the campaign all this other stuff that the Government is raising then never delivering. Like for example the non-response to the Gonski Review which has never seen the light of day there’s no substance to the government’s response. That will all become very much second order issues.

Van Onselen: I want to get on to your portfolio in a moment as well as your role as Leader of the Opposition in the House in terms of only one more parliamentary week to go but before that news of the week, clearly from yesterday, the Royal Commission that’s been called into child sex offences across the board. Now, as a well-known Catholic, were you satisfied with Cardinal Pell’s reaction? He tended to in between calling for what’s happened and being supportive of it, he equally had a real crack at the media for spending too much time talking in particular about the Catholic Church. Do you agree with that?

Pyne: Well I think the truth is that Tony Abbott said that we would support a Royal Commission before the Prime Minister announced one…

Van Onselen: Was that because you got wind of what the government was going to be announcing one because there was speculation about it at a round the same time that Abbott jumped in and said that he supported it…

Pyne: Well certainly not that I’m aware of but the truth is that the Leader of the Opposition went out and said that we would support a Royal Commission. I think that was what really pushed the Prime Minister’s hand into calling a Royal Commission so all political parties are in favour of this Royal Commission as is the Catholic Church and Cardinal Pell and many other Archbishops and Bishops have actually welcomed it because we don’t want to be like Ireland which decided to turn a blind eye as much as it could to the crisis there and it has a massive impact on the psyche of the Irish people. I think it is great that Australia will confront this issue. Cardinal Pell is also saying though is that the Catholic Church is not the only perpetrator of this evil in Australia and over the years there has been many countless examples, Anglican priests, others, Salvation Army, Scientologists, foster homes, children’s detention homes which they used to be called, jails for young people, children who are wards of the state across the nation. This is not something that is a Catholic Church problem, this is a whole of society problem. And I think that the Royal Commission is going to have a big impact on Australia because I think we are going to be really shocked at how prevalent this evil has been in our community and it’s been terribly wrong for a very long time.

Van Onselen: And there is no doubt that these issues go much wider than the Catholic Church…

Pyne: and that’s all he is saying…

Van Onselen: I agree with you about that …but that said in terms of the catholic Church there are going to be some awkward moments I think and one, you’re a well-known Catholic …let me put this to you for example, what’s the deal with if priests have confessed in what is supposed to be the sanctity of the confession box within the Catholic Church they’ve confessed to another priest about crimes that include paedophilia. Now under normal Church rules I would have thought that would something the priest who has received the confession is not allowed to divulge. In this Royal Commission when called before the Royal Commissioner and provided to answer questions would you like to see priests violating that traditional Catholic role which is that they are not allowed to say what happened in a confessional.

Pyne: Well the rules of the Church are the rules of the Church but as a Member of Parliament it’s quite clearly beholden on anyone who becomes aware of the sexual abuse of minors to report that to the police and to the appropriate authorities. Whether that’s a Royal Commission or whether it’s the police itself. So the Church has to set its own rules but if a priest hears a crime committed against a child, they have a responsibility to report a crime to the police.

Van Onselen: Even if that has been said in the confessional which as you know the Catholic Church says stays there and is not something to be repeated - even then you think they should divulge that to the police or to a Royal Commission?

Pyne: Well I don’t think any Member of Parliament could defend a crime that someone becomes aware of in the confessional not being reported to the police.

Van Onselen: Is that likely to be… I mean is that purely your view or is a wider view of the Liberal Party … I’m surprised to be honest ... I would have thought for a Catholic that would’ve been a difficult one for you to say...even though I agree with it... I’m not religious in that sense.

Pyne: Well I’m a Catholic of course I am, well not of course, but I am a Catholic and a father of four children as well but I’m also a Member of Parliament and I’ve been in parliament for 20 years and I don’t think anybody could possibly defend a person becoming aware of a crime against a child and thinking that protecting the perpetrator of that crime was more important than protecting the victim.

Van Onselen: Is Cardinal Pell likely to support that do you think?

Pyne: Well Cardinal Pell is the head of the Church and I respect him absolutely enormously and he knows that of course. But the rules of the Church are the rules of the Church, the rules of the State are the rules of the State.

Van Onselen: But should he open that up to the rules of the state, given the nature of this wide-ranging inquiry do you think?

Pyne: I can’t see the Church changing their rules but that doesn’t change my answer. And individual priests, of course, will have to make that decision themselves.

Van Onselen: And lastly, what about Tony Abbott? I mean he’s your leader and as you say he is parliamentarian first and I suppose Catholic second. Is he likely to support your position do you think?

Pyne: I would be very surprised if he didn’t agree with my position but that’s a matter that might be put to him at some point.

Van Onselen: OK. Moving on to your portfolio if I can. Starting I guess with Leader of the Opposition in the House, one week of Parliament to go - what are we going to see when Parliament comes back? More of Julie Bishop prosecuting the AWU case against Julia Gillard?

Pyne: Well Julie Bishop’s doing a very good job prosecuting that case as you put it. If the Prime Minister would answer the questions the matter would go away. The problem is…

Van Onselen: But she’s not going to do that. So in other words you won’t let up.

Pyne: But why wouldn’t she answer the questions? I mean, sure, she gave an hour long press conference on August the 23rd about the AWU slush fund and Slater & Gordon and her role in the setting up of the slush fund and then her knowledge of it apparently. We’ve asked her eight questions – none of which were asked at that press conference. All unique matters, none of which she has answered. Now I think she is getting herself more and more into trouble by not answering the questions directly and I think her Labor caucus is becoming quite restless about the issue. For example, we asked her that at the August 23rd press conference she said that when she found out about the fraud she ended the relationship with Bruce Wilson. The next obvious question that wasn’t asked at that press conference was well what else did she do? Because she was a lawyer in Victoria, she is an officer of the court one would have expected her to report that fraud to the authorities. When we asked her that question she said the appropriate authorities were engaged but not by her. So what did she do? And she won’t answer that question.

Van Onselen: What about the argument, whether there are unanswered questions or not, what about the argument that there are so many problems with this government that they’ve had, some of which you highlighted earlier in this interview, much less over the last couple of years, you don’t need to trawl over events albeit unanswered perhaps for seventeen plus years ago. Just focus on the problems of the Government now. You risk otherwise voters’ eyes gazing over.

Pyne: Well there are so many problems with the government you are absolutely right. I mean 16 boats arrived in the last week, we had 16 boats arrive in a five year period in the Howard Government.

Van Onselen: But you are doing so much, spending, so much time on the AWU.

Pyne: Well not really.

Van Onselen: Unanswered questions or not, your Deputy Leader of the Opposition is devoting every question virtually in parliament to it.

Pyne: Well we have about forty questions a week and over a period of three weeks that is 120 questions and we’ve asked eight questions about the AWU slush fund. So we are not mesmerised by the Prime Minister’s role in the AWU slush fund. Obviously a lot of members in the Labor Party are because that is where all the information has been coming from for the last six months.

Van Onselen: Robert McLelland in particular.
Pyne: Well I’m not (Inaudible) accusing him…

Van Onselen: What I mean is he got this started in Parliament.
Pyne: He did raise it in Parliament. So the Prime Minister should be more concerned about her Labor Caucus than she is about the fact that she shouldn’t just answer the questions directly that Julie Bishop is quite properly asking her. But we are focusing more on things like the cost of living, electricity prices went up in the last quarter by 15%, but the government mocks this. They mock pensioners and small business people that can’t pay their bills. They think that this has been a great success. They’ve given themselves a big tick for the carbon tax. As I’ve said before, the problem is that Wayne Swan and Greg Combet think they’ve done such a great job with this tax why would anyone assume they wouldn’t introduce another tax just like it to fill their revenue black hole which is now $120 billion.

Van Onselen: If you win the next election, you are likely to be not only Manager of Government Business in the lower house but also the Education Minister, assuming there is not portfolio changes. Now do you have to be careful that you won’t suffer the same fate of the first Education Minister in the lifetime of the Howard Government, Amanda Vanstone, that presided over a raft of cuts? Equally David Kemp as her senior minister, he went the wrong way as well, because Education is a tough portfolio for Liberals in government and if you’re looking to slice into the budget to bring it to surplus it’s potentially one of those areas that sees cuts.

Pyne: Well the government has already cut so much money from education in MYEFO that it’s hard to imagine…

Van Onselen: So you can’t cut anymore?

Pyne: Well they cut $3.9 billion or $4 billion in MYEFO from the education portfolio…

Van Onselen: Is that a commitment not to cut more?

Pyne: Well we will outline all of our spending commitments and proposals and reductions before the next election. In education that will be quite clear that people can make their choice. We have a very clear policy in education, its built around teacher quality, robust curriculum, principal autonomy, ending the discrimination against children with disability in the non-government schools sector, putting aside funds in the future for infrastructure ‘cause the Costello baby bubble is coming through the system and there’ll be need for new infrastructure, new schools.

Van Onselen: And can you achieve all of that with a lower envelope of spending than there is now or do you need that amount I think?

Pyne: Well I’m not saying there’ll be a lower envelope of spending; I believe we will be able to fund all of our commitments. There are policies of the government we don’t support that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education have been dismantling, hurriedly behind the scenes for the last few months, like computers in schools for example. They cut $600 million from that in the budget. Apprenticeships and training; the Trade Training Centres they were going to deliver, you might remember 2,650, they’ve delivered 208 and now quietly strangled the policy behind the bike shed, that’s now finished, that was in the MYEFO just 2 or 3 weeks ago, so they’re back-pedalling away from all their announcements ‘cause that’s what they do. They make an announcement; they get a hit on the front page of the newspaper. It runs for a day and then they move on and later on their back-peddle from that policy and hope that the public don’t remember.

Van Onselen: One final question, I know you have got a plane to catch so last question if I can, one of the times I spoke to you previously on this programme I asked you about a leading issue as a moderate that you are passionate about…

Pyne: You always do.

Van Onselen: …and you mentioned the republic. I asked the same question of Joe Hockey as another leading moderate on Sunday and he identified the republic. That’s pretty much two of Tony Abbott’s most senior lieutenants raising that they’re republicans. It’s been a while now since another senior member ran the republic campaign, Malcolm Turnbull…

Pyne: And Peter Costello.

Van Onselen: Well he’s not in Parliament anymore.

Pyne: No.

Van Onselen: You three are the most senior around an avowed monarchist in Tony Abbott. Is there any chance in the lifetime of an Abbott Prime Ministership that his team of moderate, republican supporters around him are likely to see a situation where you’ll put a bit of pressure on for another referendum?

Pyne: Look I think it’s very unlikely indeed that Tony Abbott will ever sponsor a referendum of the republic…

Van Onselen: So you guys might have to get rid of him to be able to move to a republic.

Pyne: Well I’m over 45 Peter and I’ve been in Parliament for 20 years. So clearly I’m a very patient man and my view is that the republic will come. Australia will eventually have its own head of state, rather than one that lives in Westminster and I look forward to that day and I’ll support it…

Van Onselen: Will you be a parliamentarian when it happens though?

Pyne: I certainly hope so. I think it will definitely happen. But I think when the current Monarch of Australia ends her reign and there is a new monarch, then I think that that will be an opportunity to revisit the issue because I think a lot of Australians will think it is quite disrespectful to be revisiting it now to the Queen’s reign, but I think there is a natural break that will come at some point and hopefully that day is a long way off, but when it does I think we will revisit the republic at that time and I’ll be an enthusiastic supporter of it.

Van Onselen: Alright Mr Pyne we’ll let you go, although I did notice on the betting odds today for the first time I saw your name come in the mix for Liberal Leader at the next election, 35/1 are likely to put a punt on?

Pyne: You should stop putting money on me.

Van Onselen: Thanks for joining us on Showdown, appreciate it.

Pyne: Pleasure.

ENDS